ArticleMedicine2025
Finite element analysis of the treatment of infant developmental dysplasia of the hip by traditional Chinese medical physical manipulation.
Article in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study used finite element analysis to biomechanically evaluate a traditional Chinese medicine physical manipulation for the reduction of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) in infants. An infant-specific 3-dimensional finite element model of the hip, incorporating the pelvic bones and Y-cartilage, was developed. As direct segmentation of infant hip cartilage from clinical magnetic resonance imaging was unreliable, a validated scaling method based on an adult model was employed. A dynamic analysis compared the stress distribution and contact area in the acetabulum and femoral head during a simulated reduction maneuver across different abduction angles (40°, 60°, and 80°), chosen to represent the clinically applied range. A safe acetabular contact pressure limit was defined as ≤2.1 MPa based on published data from healthy infant hips. The results indicated that stress and contact area varied significantly with the abduction angle. The 60° abduction angle demonstrated the most favorable biomechanical profile, yielding the largest acetabular contact area of 216.8 mm2 and a peak acetabular contact pressure of 0.727 MPa, which was well within the safe limit. In contrast, an 80° abduction angle led to hazardous stress concentrations, with the peak acetabular contact pressure reaching 3.84 MPa, exceeding the safe limit, and a doubling of the peak femoral head pressure compared to the 60° position. The biomechanical analysis suggests that an abduction angle of 60° during the manipulation provides a safer and more effective profile for the initial reduction of DDH compared to higher angles, promoting a uniform stress distribution conducive to acetabular development while minimizing risks of cartilage injury and vascular compromise. The finite element analysis indicates that this traditional Chinese medicine physical manipulation is a feasible treatment approach for infant DDH, and the identified optimal 60° abduction may offer a biomechanical advantage over the often higher, sustained abduction angles used in the Pavlik harness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.